I think that patriotism is the behavioral manifestation of nationalism, which is based on that good old primate tribalism, and so perhaps we should be discussing the pros and cons of nationalism. Education is one tool for inculcating nationalist fervor, and addressing that question is implied in addressing the question of whether nationalism has become a good or a bad thing.

Looking at it in terms of the tribal instinct makes it easier to see the progression of the instinct over human history, and to see today's nationalism as but one phase of an ongoing evolutionary process. Not physical evolution, of course, but the ongoing evolution of the human mind, and in this case it's evolving ability to see itself as a member of ever-larger tribes.

Looking back, feudalism expanded the average human mind to see itself as a member of a group larger than the immediate village, the kingdom. That mental "training" in turn made it possible for people to grasp the concept of the modern nation-state. In general terms I think that that phase of our mental evolution plateaued from the late 18th through the mid-20th centuries.

The concept of globalism--perceiving one's self as a member of humanity rather than a nation-state--starts to appear early in the 20th, but WWII seems to have been the catalyst for the postwar explosion in thinking about "one world", because of its painful object lesson about the dangers of nationalism. The UN was envisioned as just the first step toward a world government, and though it's been blocked from growing by the fierce opposition of nationalists, notably the American Right, the appearance of countless other global and transnational entities is solid evidence that a large number of human minds have begun to evolve into the next phase of perceptual tribalism, membership in humanity as a whole. The new broader perpsective won't be denied forever, and so it "leaks" around the nationalist obstructionism to manifest as a rich variety of NGOs and even transnational corporations.

I think that there's a simple question that gauges where a person stands on the intellectual evolutionary scale: If you perceive that your nation's actions are detrimental to humanity as a whole, which side would you take?

It'd be interesting to see how the more "dedicated" American Conservatives would answer that question. Watching the heads explode over the ideological impurity of John McCain, and their expressed willingness to see their party destroyed rather than give a micron on points of dogma, suggests which way they'd answer.

I take it for granted that the people generally classified "Liberal" would at least feel some conflict when considering the question. For my part, the answer would be that I'd feel duty-bound to try to change the behavior of my country to prevent it from damaging my species. A hierarchy of loyalties doesn't seem at all mind-boggling.